Taking LSAT 4th time? Forum

[DukeofRutgers]

So I took the December 2013 LSAT today.

June 2010: 165
December 2010: 165
December 2013: ???

This LSAT went well for the most part but I'm pretty sure I tanked a passage in Reading Comp (the one with the mirrors.. I'm guessing I only 4 out of 8 on this passage alone). At least, I feel pretty confident about the other three passages.

Logical Reasoning was fairly easy.

Logic Games was frustrating but I think I got most of the answers right in the end, it just took a while to figure out one of the games....I might have even got all of them right but ugh... the pain. If I had 2-3 more minutes, I know I would have gotten them all right for sure...

I have a pretty good job now with a lot of upside potential but I am strongly considering law school if I can get a score which makes it possible for me to get into Yale/Harvard/Columbia/NYU. [Basically 170+]. I probably wouldn't apply anywhere else - I might as well stick with my current job.

If I don't get at least a 170, I am considering retaking it.. in particular, because I think that one stupid reading comp passage is going to bring my score down. I took Kaplan this time around and was scoring 167-172 on the practice tests (no prep when I took it in 2010 - I just took some old tests as practice). But on the other hand, reading comp was my worst section on the other two tests I took IRL too.. so *shrug*.

However, would it look bad to the schools I want to apply if I take the LSAT a 4th time [if the first two times I took it were two years ago]?

I would probably aim for June 2014 especially since I'm already taking vacation from work that week anyway.

Thanks in advance.

[notalobbyist]

If you want to go to NYU+, and take 3 isn't sufficient, then you don't really have any other options. Depending on your GPA a 170 might be tough, but this cycle could be more forgiving than cycles past.

I wouldn't sweat the prospect of retaking, but if you're T6 or bust it makes me wonder if it even makes sense for you to go to law school in the first place since Penn w/ $$$<NYU at sticker. You're probably getting in at sticker at a T6 school with a 170, but I don't know your circumstances or goals so maybe it makes perfect sense somehow.

BTW, Kaplan isn't the best prep. I was much happier with Powerscore than Kaplan.

[Nova]

However, would it look bad to the schools I want to apply if I take the LSAT a 4th time [if the first two times I took it were two years ago]?

No

[objection_your_honor]

A 170+ will trump whatever minor negative a fourth take brings (which is negligible or nonexistent, for the record).

[EarlCat]

Pretend you're an admissions officer. Which of the following are you more likely to admit?

165, 165, 165
or
165, 165, 165, 172

[KDLMaj]

If you're NYU- neither.

Taking the test 4 times markedly diminishes the weight of that last score. Honestly, taking it three times is already questionable. You've proven to them that you're a 165 applicant. If you suddenly go up, most of the reasonable explanations for the sudden jump don't work in your favor.

Don't get me wrong- it's not going to hurt you if you suddenly jump up to a 172. But I wouldn't expect it to hold a ton of weight. And if you suddenly drop- you're really in trouble.

[chuckbass]

If you're NYU- neither.

Taking the test 4 times markedly diminishes the weight of that last score. Honestly, taking it three times is already questionable. You've proven to them that you're a 165 applicant. If you suddenly go up, most of the reasonable explanations for the sudden jump don't work in your favor.

Don't get me wrong- it's not going to hurt you if you suddenly jump up to a 172. But I wouldn't expect it to hold a ton of weight. And if you suddenly drop- you're really in trouble.

Lolz what is this nonsense? Yale may not look favorably on it, but otherwise a 172 is a 172 and will be treated as such.

[rebexness]

If you're NYU- neither.

Taking the test 4 times markedly diminishes the weight of that last score. Honestly, taking it three times is already questionable. You've proven to them that you're a 165 applicant. If you suddenly go up, most of the reasonable explanations for the sudden jump don't work in your favor.

Don't get me wrong- it's not going to hurt you if you suddenly jump up to a 172. But I wouldn't expect it to hold a ton of weight. And if you suddenly drop- you're really in trouble.

This is all untrue.

[Clearly]

If you're NYU- neither.

Taking the test 4 times markedly diminishes the weight of that last score. Honestly, taking it three times is already questionable. You've proven to them that you're a 165 applicant. If you suddenly go up, most of the reasonable explanations for the sudden jump don't work in your favor.

Don't get me wrong- it's not going to hurt you if you suddenly jump up to a 172. But I wouldn't expect it to hold a ton of weight. And if you suddenly drop- you're really in trouble.

Protip: If you don't know what you're talking about, you should stop posting. I literally know current 1L's AT NYU with four LSAT takes and big jump.

[KDLMaj]

Pro Tip: I literally know law school admissions officers and have had this conversation with a few off the record. (I have been working in this field for six years) Knowing one or two people who got away with it doesn't mean it didn't count against them. It means they had other actors that outweighed the quadruple take. It's true that some schools will take a 172 on the tenth try just because they want to add it to their median, but if you think Harvard or Columbia are blasse about four scores on a record with one high score as an outlier... you are fooling yourself.

And people also misunderstand the highest score issue. The ABA requires schools to submit an applicant's highest score- which gave schools incentive to only factor in that score. But the ABA decision didn't actually require schools to only factor in that one score for their own admissions decisions. Not every school only counts the highest score. NYU, for example, averages scores. Harvard refuses to commit either way.

Having said that, it's better than not having that score at all. And things are getting less competitive, which helps. But anyone who tells you that the number of times you to the test doesn't matter is terribly misguided. ( Especially if they quote NYU as their proof)

[SteelPenguin]

Pro Tip: I literally know law school admissions officers and have had this conversation with a few off the record. (I have been working in this field for six years) Knowing one or two people who got away with it doesn't mean it didn't count against them. It means they had other actors that outweighed the quadruple take. It's true that some schools will take a 172 on the tenth try just because they want to add it to their median, but if you think Harvard or Columbia are blasse about four scores on a record with one high score as an outlier... you are fooling yourself.

And people also misunderstand the highest score issue. The ABA requires schools to submit an applicant's highest score- which gave schools incentive to only factor in that score. But the ABA decision didn't actually require schools to only factor in that one score for their own admissions decisions. Not every school only counts the highest score. NYU, for example, averages scores. Harvard refuses to commit either way.

Having said that, it's better than not having that score at all. And things are getting less competitive, which helps. But anyone who tells you that the number of times you to the test doesn't matter is terribly misguided. ( Especially if they quote NYU as their proof)

This changes everything.

[BentleyLittle]

Pro Tip: I literally know law school admissions officers and have had this conversation with a few off the record. (I have been working in this field for six years) Knowing one or two people who got away with it doesn't mean it didn't count against them. It means they had other actors that outweighed the quadruple take. It's true that some schools will take a 172 on the tenth try just because they want to add it to their median, but if you think Harvard or Columbia are blasse about four scores on a record with one high score as an outlier... you are fooling yourself.

And people also misunderstand the highest score issue. The ABA requires schools to submit an applicant's highest score- which gave schools incentive to only factor in that score. But the ABA decision didn't actually require schools to only factor in that one score for their own admissions decisions. Not every school only counts the highest score. NYU, for example, averages scores. Harvard refuses to commit either way.

Having said that, it's better than not having that score at all. And things are getting less competitive, which helps. But anyone who tells you that the number of times you to the test doesn't matter is terribly misguided. ( Especially if they quote NYU as their proof)

This changes everything.

Sarcasm?

[CardozoLaw09]

Pro Tip: I literally know law school admissions officers and have had this conversation with a few off the record. (I have been working in this field for six years) Knowing one or two people who got away with it doesn't mean it didn't count against them. It means they had other actors that outweighed the quadruple take. It's true that some schools will take a 172 on the tenth try just because they want to add it to their median, but if you think Harvard or Columbia are blasse about four scores on a record with one high score as an outlier... you are fooling yourself.

And people also misunderstand the highest score issue. The ABA requires schools to submit an applicant's highest score- which gave schools incentive to only factor in that score. But the ABA decision didn't actually require schools to only factor in that one score for their own admissions decisions. Not every school only counts the highest score. NYU, for example, averages scores. Harvard refuses to commit either way.

Having said that, it's better than not having that score at all. And things are getting less competitive, which helps. But anyone who tells you that the number of times you to the test doesn't matter is terribly misguided. ( Especially if they quote NYU as their proof)

This changes everything.

Sarcasm?

I would think so